You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

How is the decision made by the feeler in this case considered an emotional one? Yes, the feeler is empathizing and trying to make the other person feel better, but what emotion is driving the feeler to do this?

being uncomfortable with negative energy? drive for harmony?

although i dont agree with FluffyW that saying "Everything is going to be alright." is rational for feelers. thats an emperical observation; i would not call it rational. as i said before, we dont really understand the full nature of feelings.

Ok, those could be the reasons that the feeler is comforting the other person.
But why choose to say "Everything is going to be alright" instead of some other more logical action that might also work to achieve the same goal? What is the "emotion" behind that choice?

4w5, Fi>Ne>Ti>Si>Ni>Fe>Te>Se, sp > so > sx

appreciates being appreciated, conflicted over conflicts, afraid of being afraid, bad at being bad, predictably unpredictable, consistently inconsistent, remarkably unremarkable...

I may not agree with what you are feeling, but I will defend to death your right to have a good cry over it

The whole problem with the world is that fools & fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts. ~ Bertrand Russell

So heres a question: Do you think its possible to actually step away/remove ourselves from 'emotions' when looking at an issue?

Depends on the issue but yes it is possible. I can be objective at times even though it is hurting like hell inside and although it feels like i am going against the grain of who i am, it possible.

Other times i am unable to suppress those emotions as i am being selfish.

“I made you take time to look at what I saw and when you took time to really notice my flower, you hung all your associations with flowers on my flower and you write about my flower as if I think and see what you think and see—and I don't.”
― Georgia O'Keeffe

So heres a question: Do you think its possible to actually step away/remove ourselves from 'emotions' when looking at an issue?

Superficially, yes. In reality, no. Although, we do appear very good at it.

When we make decisions, we don't separate from our emotions. We accept or reject them. This requires an acknowledgment of our emotional state, an evaluation of its cause and effect, and a cost-benefit analysis of using the emotional state to make our decision. This means that, rather than separating from use of our emotions, we are making them an integral part of our decision making process. The difference between us and some NF types, is that we will frequently choose to take the effort to override our current emotional state in favor of a future emotional state. We're good at delayed gratification. I prefer to make correct decisions that benefit the collective long term, than to make an "emotional" decision that benefits me in the short term.

NT's just think they look cooler if they pretend to be emotionless.

Originally Posted by eternal recurrence

This line: "I am being more rational than you" - may be an illusion for your rationality is just a set of learned ways of interacting that appear to lack emotion, HOWEVER! are not all decisions/arguments ultimately moral and emotional ones?

TO put it in a strong way: I think people are fooling themselves if they think in life they are making 'clean' decisions, 'unemotional' arguments, or undertaking entire 'rational' courses of action.

"Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office than to serve and obey them." - David Hume

"You will always be fond of me. I represent to you all the sins you never had the courage to commit."

Reason is, and ought only to be the slave of the passions, and can never pretend to any other office
than to serve and obey them. - David Hume

How is the decision made by the feeler in this case considered an emotional one? Yes, the feeler is empathizing and trying to make the other person feel better, but what emotion is driving the feeler to do this?

Good point. A lot of Thinkers fail to grasp the difference between emotions and feeling-values.

To emphasize the difference, Feelers may find their emotions and values at odds at times.

Originally Posted by thisGuy

being uncomfortable with negative energy? drive for harmony?

The former is emotion, the latter is a feeling-value. The feeling-value is not emotion because it is based on reasoning. A conclusion has been made that harmony good and should be promoted. I don't think I need to argue the value of harmony between people and the value of inner harmony and why they make sense.

The "uncomfortable with negative energy" emotional response alerts the Feeler that a value is violated. The emotion is a signal to derive meaning from. Analyzing what caused these emotions allows the Feeler to understand why certain things are to be valued and to arrange a hierarchy of values. Speaking for myself, I don't often think in such linear terms, but that's the breakdown of what goes on.

The bottom line is, emotion is not the driver for a Feeler's decisions (although it can cloud decision making in any person). It's a signal that the Feeler can choose to listen to or not, depending on what it's saying.

Often a star was waiting for you to notice it. A wave rolled toward you out of the distant past, or as you walked under an open window, a violin yielded itself to your hearing. All this was mission. But could you accomplish it? (Rilke)

I was reading this thread of 'what do you like about feelers' and one complaint is that there is a tendency to not be logical in arguments, make emotional appeals, or base their decisions on their emotions.

So heres a question: Do you think its possible to actually step away/remove ourselves from 'emotions' when looking at an issue?

This line: "I am being more rational than you" - may be an illusion for your rationality is just a set of learned ways of interacting that appear to lack emotion, HOWEVER! are not all decisions/arguments ultimately moral and emotional ones?

TO put it in a strong way: I think people are fooling themselves if they think in life they are making 'clean' decisions, 'unemotional' arguments, or undertaking entire 'rational' courses of action.